So I was just wanting to create a thread where my OO brothers and sisters can discuss St Cyril's formula of reunion with John of Antioch. Discussing both its flaws and its good points. I know that due to its ambiguities it was misinterpreted by Theodoreans, but the OO Fathers upheld it, and I would like someone to post the writings of some OO Fathers on the formulary. I have heard that St Severus of Antioch discusses it in his works "contra grammaticum" and "philalethes", unfortunately I have, as of yet, not been able to purchase these works. So I would like to know your thoughts on it. Here's the formulary; contrary to popular belief the formulary isn't the letter to John as a whole, but only this one passage of said letter:

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.

For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as per-raining to the one person, and other flyings they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity].

« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 12:50:43 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

St Dioscorus praises the formulary in his letter to Domnus of Antioch:

"Now I come back to you, O Christ loving bishop of Antioch, my brother,observe that John did not spare any effort to strengthen the unity of theChurch at your end and ours. A unity that they cannot disrupt, theydispatched their forces against it, and without feeling it, they were aboutto destroy the time of peace. How glorious is the time of peace!"

« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 12:40:08 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Cheer up! I bet scores of people are prayerfully considering your posts, and doing copious amounts of research in preparation for their own contributions to the thread.

Thanks for the words of comfort. Lol

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

P.S.I read a lot (and enjoyed it) from your saint, Severus of Antioch on http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm . It really helped me to understand that you are truly miaphysites and not monophysites. Have a good evening (or day).

P.S.I read a lot (and enjoyed it) from your saint, Severus of Antioch on http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm . It really helped me to understand that you are truly miaphysites and not monophysites. Have a good evening (or day).

Thank you, glad you enjoyed St Severus.

God bless,Severian

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I'll bite--but not in a polemical way. I have no interest in arguing, I actually want to learn something so, please, be magnanimous like the holy fathers were.

Given that even Pope Dioscorus supported the Formula of Reunion, why does there appear to be rejection of it from the Oriental Churches? (Maybe I'm mistaken.)

I wouldn't say we reject it. We OOs have always believed that an individual can distinguish between the two natures in Christ via "intellectual discernment", as St Severus calls it. For example I can say: "the one incarnate nature (or hypostasis) of the Logos suffered and died in the flesh, yet remained impassible in his divinity, clearly demonstrating the properties of his two natures".

Here the one incarnate nature/hypostasis is the actor/subject of the actions, but when I want to define the precise operative capacities which give the one nature/hypostasis the ability to act I can distinguish between two natures.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 11:59:36 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

^ So you see, it wasn't the two nature-formulae per se which bothered us, but rather the manner and context in which it was expressed at Chalcedon. In fact even St Dioscorus said (according to the Coptic Orthodox Synaxarium): "Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, He who was invited to the wedding as a man and changed the water into wine as a God, and that the two natures were not separated in all of His works." Here Patr. Dioscorus is already presupposing that Christ, "en theoria" (in contemplation), possesses two complete and distinct natures. Does that help?

God bless,Severian

« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 12:02:52 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I'll bite--but not in a polemical way. I have no interest in arguing, I actually want to learn something so, please, be magnanimous like the holy fathers were.

Given that even Pope Dioscorus supported the Formula of Reunion, why does there appear to be rejection of it from the Oriental Churches? (Maybe I'm mistaken.)

I wouldn't say we reject it. We OOs have always believed that an individual can distinguish between the two natures in Christ via "intellectual discernment", as St Severus calls it. For example I can say: "the one incarnate nature (or hypostasis) of the Logos suffered and died in the flesh, yet remained impassible in his divinity, clearly demonstrating the properties of his two natures".

Here the one incarnate nature/hypostasis is the actor/subject of the actions, but when I want to define the precise operative capacities which give the one nature/hypostasis the ability to act I can distinguish between two natures.

I don't see how this is different from the Eastern Orthodox position.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

^This post here gives a concise exposition of what OO mean when we say "one nature", amongst other issues.

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

"He did not take the flesh into the fulness of his own divine nature and mix it with it, nor did he mingle it with his own Godhead, but that in the dispensatory assumption we might understand him to be not without flesh, Emmanuel being wonderfully composed and consisting of two elements, the Godhead and the manhood: but even so he preserved the absence, of mixture in the divine essence, and did not change the essence of the Godhead into the nature of flesh."

and:

"This too was carried out in the ritual of the law also; for the two goats on whom lots were laid were a type of Christ our Saviour, who is made up of two elements, the perfect Godhead I mean and the manhood: and the one, on whom the Lord's lot fell, was slaughtered, while the other was dismissed into the wilderness that is not passed,, who also was named 'the dismissible', who gained the appellation also from the fact itself; for he was dismissed, but was hot simply dismissed, but in the manner which Scripture mentioned; for it said as follows: «And thou shalt bring the living goat, and Aaron shall lay his two hands on the head of the living goat, and shall confess over him all the sin of the sons of Israel, and all their wickedness and their iniquity, and shall lay them on the head of the living goat, and shall dismiss him by means of a man who is ready into the wilderness; and the goat shall take upon him all their iniquity» . This therefore was thus performed in the case of the two goats also, that the one was slaughtered and the other dismissed. We clearly see the hidden meaning which relates to the Cross: for the type denotes that the same one Christ suffered in the flesh, but remained without suffering in that he is considered to he true God. For the same person both is separated by lots to the Lord and slaughtered (for 'he delivered himself for our sake as an offering and a sacrifice to God the Father for a sweet savour'"

St Severus is the most important OO theologian in history (besides St Cyril) and he clearly distinguishes between the two "elements" (natures) in Christ.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 12:19:23 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I am disappointed that this thread didn't catch the headway I thought it would.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 12:53:02 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Sorry I can't help you but since it has been clearly explained in this forum, St Severus was not guilty as charged by some Fathers, what was the problem? Was it just that he rejected the Council of Chalcedon? Or is the whole business too subtle for tiny brains to comprehend?

^ So you see, it wasn't the two nature-formulae per se which bothered us, but rather the manner and context in which it was expressed at Chalcedon. In fact even St Dioscorus said (according to the Coptic Orthodox Synaxarium): "Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, He who was invited to the wedding as a man and changed the water into wine as a God, and that the two natures were not separated in all of His works." Here Patr. Dioscorus is already presupposing that Christ, "en theoria" (in contemplation), possesses two complete and distinct natures. Does that help?

God bless,Severian

The two natures, according to EO Chalcedonianism, can only be seperated "en theoria."

I don't think there is much Chalcedonian Fathers have said on the Formula of Reunion. It's taken as a given.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The two natures, according to EO Chalcedonianism, can only be seperated "en theoria."

I don't think there is much Chalcedonian Fathers have said on the Formula of Reunion. It's taken as a given.

Don't you mean "distinguished" en theoria, rather than separated?

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

The two natures, according to EO Chalcedonianism, can only be seperated "en theoria."

I don't think there is much Chalcedonian Fathers have said on the Formula of Reunion. It's taken as a given.

Don't you mean "distinguished" en theoria, rather than separated?

yes, perhaps distinguished is a better term.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Dioscorus and his supporters laid great emphasis on these Anathemas, orChapters, while denying authority to the Formula of Reunion. Our view ofhow Cyrillian is the Chalcedonian Definition will depend on to which ofthese two Cyrils – the moderate Cyril of the Second Letter to Nestorius andthe Letter to John of Antioch, or the uncompromising Cyril of the TwelveChapters – we give priority.

^I have already provided a primary source where St Dioscorus praises the formulary. Nevertheless, it is a widespread belief that he denied the formulary.

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

^ So you see, it wasn't the two nature-formulae per se which bothered us, but rather the manner and context in which it was expressed at Chalcedon. In fact even St Dioscorus said (according to the Coptic Orthodox Synaxarium): "Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, He who was invited to the wedding as a man and changed the water into wine as a God, and that the two natures were not separated in all of His works." Here Patr. Dioscorus is already presupposing that Christ, "en theoria" (in contemplation), possesses two complete and distinct natures. Does that help?

God bless,Severian

The two natures, according to EO Chalcedonianism, can only be seperated "en theoria."

Yeah, the quotes Severian has given from an OO perspective seem like they could easily be EO as well.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

While perhaps Severian didn't get the level of feedback he was anticipating, I would just like to comment that I am elated at the two responses which mentioned EO folks learning and understanding that OO is not "monophysite" as we have always thought of such designations as pejorative. Praise God that such 1600 year old misunderstandings can be quelled in the hearts of folks here, and we can begin to synergize our fellowship as One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church in the Lord.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Formula for Reunion pre-Chalcedonian and an inter-Oriental matter between Alexandria and the accusations of Nestorianism in Antioch? While there have been Chalcedonian interpretations regarding this Formula, surely we should better examine it in the context of Nestorianism rather then the later Chalcedon debates? Stay Blessed,Habte Selassie

« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:03:40 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

OO is not "monophysite" as we have always thought of such designations as pejorative.

While I understand that you are not monophysites in the Eutychesian sense and that many of you deem tbat designation as offencing your statement isn't entirely accurate. The present Coptic pope has said in his book about Christology that it is completely acceptable to call OOs as monophysites.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:27:34 PM by Alpo »

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

OO is not "monophysite" as we have always thought of such designations as pejorative.

While I understand that you are not monophysites in the Eutychesian sense and that many of you deem tbat designation as offencing your statement isn't entirely accurate. The present Coptic pope has said in his book about Christology that it is completely acceptable to call OOs as monophysites.

The emphasis on Miaphysite is to continue to use the specific language of Saint Cyril, who adamantly insisted in a hundred instances or more to use the term "μίαφύσις" (miaphysis) to explain our pre-Chalcedon Christology, where as Monophysis is a later term applied by the EO towards the OO and Alexandria, but we ourselves never used such terms in our Christology neither do we condone such. We are specifically miaphysites as we believe in the ONE, COMPOSITE (mia) nature of our Lord and Savior in the Incarnation. In our Traditions, Monophysitism is rightfully a heresy akin to Nestorians, we would say that to believe in a SINGLE (Mono) rather than COMPOSITE (Mia) Nature is the obvious heresy to deny either that Christ in His Person is fully God and Man, rather than a God who became a Man or a Man who became a God. The Miaphysis implies a composition, a coming together, in Ethiopian Orthodox we use the term Ge'ez term "Tewahedo" (which is related to the Hebrew Achad) which means, "made into Unity" to explain that the Two Natures were formed into perfect Union in the Incarnation. Our Fathers interpret monophysitism as being an "absorption" or "unction" doctrine (we've had both heresies internally).

I am not sure where Pope Shenouda says it is acceptable - since it is used in a polemical sense.

He says only..

The term "Monophysites" used for the believers in the One Nature has been intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted throughout certain periods of history.

That being so I don't read him as saying it should be used.

Father Peter Farrington

The word "monophysite" in Arabic is usually translated "wahdani", which, translated loosely, means "one [nature] believer", or something to that effect. In other languages besides English (and perhaps Greek), it usually is a bit difficult to distinguish between "monophysite" and "miaphysite".

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

The word "monophysite" in Arabic is usually translated "wahdani", which, translated loosely, means "one [nature] believer", or something to that effect. In other languages besides English (and perhaps Greek), it usually is a bit difficult to distinguish between "monophysite" and "miaphysite".

How is "mia physis" translated in Syriac? It could be used as a loan word for Arabic or even incorporate the Amharic/Ga'ez "Tewahedo".

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

The word "monophysite" in Arabic is usually translated "wahdani", which, translated loosely, means "one [nature] believer", or something to that effect. In other languages besides English (and perhaps Greek), it usually is a bit difficult to distinguish between "monophysite" and "miaphysite".

How is "mia physis" translated in Syriac? It could be used as a loan word for Arabic or even incorporate the Amharic/Ga'ez "Tewahedo".

As far as I understand, the Arabic also uses the word "Tewad" but it is a matter of translation or context, because surely Arab Christians DO NOT use the term in the same sense that the Ethiopian Orthodox uses Tewahedo, however the Muslims uses this same Tewad as the very core of their own Christological formula which says, "There is One God, Allah" but clearly we know they interpret Tewad differently than Christians, as we mean it to imply composite unity, where as the Muslims imply solitary oneness rather than composition. So we affirm that God is One, in Three Persons using the Tewahedo formula, where as the Muslims take the same root word to explain the very opposite! I suppose its the same kinds of concepts in terminology and etymological differences between Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Christological language.

Tewahedo is in regards specifically to the Mystery of the Union of the Two Natures. It basically means "made into Unity" (tew-ahad-o) The Ethiopian fathers in their language affirm the Cyrilian Christological formulas including "from Two Natures, from Two Persons" (ye'bahareyat, ye'akalat) when we formulate the Oneness of the Person and Nature of the Incarnate Word.

Tewahedo is in regards specifically to the Mystery of the Union of the Two Natures. It basically means "made into Unity" (tew-ahad-o) The Ethiopian fathers in their language affirm the Cyrilian Christological formulas including "from Two Natures, from Two Persons" (ye'bahareyat, ye'akalat) when we formulate the Oneness of the Person and Nature of the Incarnate Word.

From two persons!!!

Don't you mean "from two natures, from two concrete realities"? To say that Christ is from two persons is even more Nestorian than Nestorius himself!

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Tewahedo is in regards specifically to the Mystery of the Union of the Two Natures. It basically means "made into Unity" (tew-ahad-o) The Ethiopian fathers in their language affirm the Cyrilian Christological formulas including "from Two Natures, from Two Persons" (ye'bahareyat, ye'akalat) when we formulate the Oneness of the Person and Nature of the Incarnate Word.

From two persons!!!

Don't you mean "from two natures, from two concrete realities"? To say that Christ is from two persons is even more Nestorian than Nestorius himself!

Agreed, Persons in the plural was not the most specific way to convey the meaning of the Amharic "Akalat" which is the plural for "akal" which can be translated as Person in some senses, but I would agree that "concrete realities" would be the best way to convey the meaning into English, considering "akal" is not only applied to human forms and other living things and objects but also the deeper realities such as the Godhead or the Persons of the Holy Trinity. We do not believe in two Persons after the Incarnation, but we fully affirm the humanity in every respect of Jesus Christ and that the Union is of two fully existing hypostases, the Divine and the Human, each with their own respective "akal" or "concrete reality" which were inseparably united into One Akal, One Form, One Person, One Concrete Reality.

Amen Amen, you are a blessing Severian when it comes to Cyrillian Christology, thank you for keeping us on our theological toes

It is forever One Person, the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ.

Stay Blessed,Habte Selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Christ is Risen!Selam everyone And I say Amen to what you have said Habte! Long Life!Severian to you too, may you have the blessing of our Holy Father St Severus!Blessed day

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Christ is Risen!Selam everyone And I say Amen to what you have said Habte! Long Life!Severian to you too, may you have the blessing of our Holy Father St Severus!Blessed day

Thank you very much!

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Agreed, Persons in the plural was not the most specific way to convey the meaning of the Amharic "Akalat" which is the plural for "akal" which can be translated as Person in some senses, but I would agree that "concrete realities" would be the best way to convey the meaning into English, considering "akal" is not only applied to human forms and other living things and objects but also the deeper realities such as the Godhead or the Persons of the Holy Trinity. We do not believe in two Persons after the Incarnation, but we fully affirm the humanity in every respect of Jesus Christ and that the Union is of two fully existing hypostases, the Divine and the Human, each with their own respective "akal" or "concrete reality" which were inseparably united into One Akal, One Form, One Person, One Concrete Reality.

Amen Amen, you are a blessing Severian when it comes to Cyrillian Christology, thank you for keeping us on our theological toes

It is forever One Person, the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ.

Stay Blessed,Habte Selassie

Habte, your post reminded me of something...

Interestingly enough, some Chalcedonians accuse St Severus of Antioch of Nestorianism because he affirmed the hypostatic character of Christ's humanity, yet I have seen St Cyril of Alexandria use the same language in his "Scholion On the Incarnation" (Ignore the numbers, they are irrelevant):

Quote

"11. That the Word being co-brought to true union with the human nature, the things united 11 have remained unconfused.

The holy Tabernacle was reared by the will of God in the wilderness and in it was manifoldly typified Emmanuel. The God of all said therefore to the divine Moses, And thou shalt make an ark of incorruptible wood, two cubits and a half its length, and a cubit and half its breadth and a cubit and a half its height, and thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it. But the wood that will not rot will be a type of the incorruptible Body (for cedar does not rot); gold as matter surpassing all others will indicate to us the Excellence of the Divine Essence.

But observe how the whole ark 12 was overlaid with pure gold within and without. For God the Word was united to the holy Flesh, and this (I deem) is it that the ark was overlaid without. But that He made His own the reasonable Soul also that was within the Body, will this shew, viz., that He bade that it should be overlaid within also. And that the Natures or Hypostases have remained unconfused, shall we see hence For the gold that was spread upon the wood, remained what it was, and the wood was rich in the glory of the gold; yet it ceased not from being wood.

But that the ark is taken as a type of Christ one may be assured of through many proofs. For it used to precede them of Israel, seeking rest for them; Christ too somewhere says, I go to prepare a place for you."

EDIT: Also, his 3rd anathema to Nestorius also suggests a hypostatic humanity:

Quote

"If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴν): let him be anathema."

In this anathema St Cyril condemns those who "divide the hypostases in Christ", he is thus affirming the hypostatic character of both Christ's divinity and humanity.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 10:41:31 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

That is of course hypostatic according to the OO Cyrilline use of the term, and not as synonymous with person. He means that the humanity of Christ is a true, concrete instance of the human nature, and not that there is a human person.

Interestingly enough, some Chalcedonians accuse St Severus of Antioch of Nestorianism because he affirmed the hypostatic character of Christ's humanity, yet I have seen St Cyril of Alexandria use the same language in his "Scholion On the Incarnation" (Ignore the numbers, they are irrelevant):

Quote

"11. That the Word being co-brought to true union with the human nature, the things united 11 have remained unconfused.

The holy Tabernacle was reared by the will of God in the wilderness and in it was manifoldly typified Emmanuel. The God of all said therefore to the divine Moses, And thou shalt make an ark of incorruptible wood, two cubits and a half its length, and a cubit and half its breadth and a cubit and a half its height, and thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it. But the wood that will not rot will be a type of the incorruptible Body (for cedar does not rot); gold as matter surpassing all others will indicate to us the Excellence of the Divine Essence.

But observe how the whole ark 12 was overlaid with pure gold within and without. For God the Word was united to the holy Flesh, and this (I deem) is it that the ark was overlaid without. But that He made His own the reasonable Soul also that was within the Body, will this shew, viz., that He bade that it should be overlaid within also. And that the Natures or Hypostases have remained unconfused, shall we see hence For the gold that was spread upon the wood, remained what it was, and the wood was rich in the glory of the gold; yet it ceased not from being wood.

But that the ark is taken as a type of Christ one may be assured of through many proofs. For it used to precede them of Israel, seeking rest for them; Christ too somewhere says, I go to prepare a place for you."

EDIT: Also, his 3rd anathema to Nestorius also suggests a hypostatic humanity:

Quote

"If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴν): let him be anathema."

In this anathema St Cyril condemns those who "divide the hypostases in Christ", he is thus affirming the hypostatic character of both Christ's divinity and humanity.

I had an interesting epipphany the hany and finally understood Nestorious' argument shortly after morning prayer dawn this morning, as I have been working on lessons plans the night before regarding the Mystery of the Two Natures and was thinking specifically about the concept of Jesus Christ being God as He is the Son of the Father, and the Son as any son is of the same Nature as His Father, just as human children are the same essence and nature as their human parents. This the Pharisees instantly comprehended in their theological mindset of their time when Jesus Christ was called by Himself and others "Son of God" and also the seemingly (to an unguided reader) confusion between the interchangeable "Son of Man" (the Enochian reference which was common usage by the contemporary messianic Essenses and St John the Baptist) which also explained the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ being the son of our Lady Mary, Mother of God. Nestorious' argument about the Theotokos doctrine was squarely set on His disagreement with the Cyrillian christological formula, and he by his own misunderstanding and personal logic he was correct to deduce the opposite conclusion, that just as Jesus Christ was God by Nature being the Son, that if His Godhead had been Incarnate within the Virign Mary, then She by proxy of the same reasoning should be Divine in being the Mother of God. The Mother must be of the same substance and essence as the Her Son, just as we humans are all the same human nature (body and soul) of our own mothers. I hadn't really looked into Nestorious' mindset regarding both the Cyrillian formula and also the Mother of God doctrine as I had both accepted them as articles of Faith and further had intuitively, spiritually agreed with them from my own experience. However, today I was thinking about the procreation by Nature, the begetting which is why Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten, I understood why it was Nestorious had to devise such complicated theology much like how Ptolemy had to get so overly complicated to make his geocentric model of the universe work. Had Nestorious been revealed the depth of the Mystery of the Union of the Two Natures he may have understood as we do. This has by far been my favorite thread ylately.

Further I think the Indians had a better grasp then he regarding Cyrillian Deification and yet the ability of the union to preserve distinction between Divine and Human (which is why he instead proposed Two distinct Persons)

Quote

"The conjunction was compared to the mingling of fire with iron in a red-hot iron ball; it was the result of proximity and association, not proper to either pricnple per se. And the two could be understood in their distinct, mutually contrary, intrinsic natures only when separated." Philosophies of India, Heinrich Zimmer

That is of course hypostatic according to the OO Cyrilline use of the term, and not as synonymous with person. He means that the humanity of Christ is a true, concrete instance of the human nature, and not that there is a human person.

I do believe that in the OO Cyrillian Christology, the hypostasis of the human nature of Jesus Christ in the Union is one and the same as the Hypostasis which the Divine Word assumed in His Body in the Incarnation. So the Word has joined into One hyposasis, the Person of Jesus Christ, the nature of His Divinity and also the nature of His humanity, which each naturally need to exist in some hypostatic form, which in the instance of Jesus Christ exist unified in One Person, One Hypostasis.HStay Blessed,Habte Selassie

« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 02:01:51 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10